Arizona is now smoke free

[Desert_Sky]

-Discuss-



*edited due to calming down and thinking rationally*

 

[olllllo]

I just hope pubs and bars don't go out of business.

They shouldn't and that was the point about evening the playing field across the state. You might see some fall off in Havasu because of the proximity to Bullhead city. But lets be realistic. Were are all of the people going to go?

They're going to give up bars out of spite???? If that's the case then they were'nt the great customers they made themselves out to be. The bar owners have to comply, why would the smokers now hold that against them?

They're going to hover outside the entrance and in the new outdoor patios that will be springing up in the coming months. And then they'll duck back inside and do what you're supposed to do in bars... drink.

We'll see in time how these new found smoking liberatarians stick to their guns when it comes to electing Libertarian candidates and supporting groups like the ACLU and the Kato Institute.

 

[Klainmeister]

How much time is spent worrying about other peoples problems than worrying about our own?

 

[Desert_Sky]

Tempe lost about 20 or so bars didn't they?

Now Im not 100% sure if you can smoke on the patio or not. Still reading up on that, but some bars don't have the space or the monetary means to just go add a patio.

 

[olllllo]

Tempe lost about 20 or so bars didn't they?

Now Im not 100% sure if you can smoke on the patio or not. Still reading up on that, but some bars don't have the space or the monetary means to just go add a patio.

Whatever that number is (not sure that x percent were going out of business anyways) the issue was that their customers went to cities (namely Phoenix) that did not ban smoking. They now have to suck it up or drive to Nogales, Sonora or Deming, NM or Bullhead City. (They can't go to CA, but as you can see, the driving to another bar is a ridiculous notion.)

Patio: I know alot of places will get permits to enclose a portion of the sidewalk in front of the premises or part of thier parking lot. Not that costly, but it's also a means for them to attract more customers that they didn't have before. You can bet that RJR will kick in for all kinds of advertisement on barriers and helpful toolkits. I'm assuming about the patio so I could be wrong.

 

[olllllo]

How much time is spent worrying about other peoples problems than worrying about our own?

It becomes other people's problem when it leaves a smokers mouth into a public space.

 

[Todd]

It becomes other people's problem when it leaves a smokers mouth into a public space.

I agree, while I hate having the government set rules I also hate going to a bar and being surrounded by smoke. No bar is going to willing make it no smoking and I shouldn't have to sit in it just to get a beer and a meal.

 

[Desert_Sky]

many times Ive quit smoking only to start up again when I go out drinking to a smoking bar, so for myself this could be a blessing in disguise. But Ive spoken to two owners here in town who are very worried that this will hurt business for a while.

But this is all beside the point. Like I stated earlier, there are ways around this. Easiest way is to make you bar a private club. THis can most likely be done by simply issuing a card stating you paid for membership, with a very minimal fee. Texas has a card like this, if you want to frequent bars while you are there, you bring your uni-card (i think thats what they call it) card with you. And once the bar is setup as a club, well we are right back to where we are now. Smoke filled.

 

[Zocken]

I live in a town that has been "smoke free" for about 2 years (Lincoln NE). A few bars did shut down, and you can defiantly see a decrease in the size of the crowds, exp. at the smaller holes in the wall. It's not so much going to another town as it is just staying home.

AZ has it lucky though, it gets down to what? 65? Try going out for a smoke in when it is 10 degrees out.

 

[todd_k]

They passed that same law a few years back in NY. All the bars were outraged and they thought they would all go out of business. Most actually ended up increasing business. Another plus (for some) was some bars turned into cigar bars or had a cigar room where you could smoke if you wanted to.

 

[anthrobe]

I am really not to sure on what to think about this. I am a smoker and do not mind the smoke filled bars, although I do understand how most feel that are non-smokers. I am going to just sit back and wait to see what happens. I just hope the microbreweries hang through this. I will still go have a beer at my favorite places and smoke outside. Does not really matter either way. Rumors have it that you will not be able to smoke on the patio and sidewalks. I still need to read up on this new law to get down to the truth.

 

[Cheesefood]

OK, so then why don't we tell companies that we don't care how much their smoke-stacks pollute the air? Let's let them, because otherwise industries lose profits.

Face it smokers, NO ONE WANTS YOUR POLLUTION!!! The people have voted. They've voted for clean air when they go out. They voted for not smelling like crap when they get home. NO ONE WANTS YOUR CANCER.

Seriously.

Is this good or bad?

 

[david_42]

Oregon has a good approach, which is based on the (gag) "it's for the children" mentality. If no one under 21 is allowed in the space, it can be a smoking area. Surprisingly, many bars that could allow smoking don't or restrict it to a separate room. The only microbrewery I've been in that allowed smoking in the main room lasted less than 6 months.

Until you've spent 59 days in a sub with 40 smokers, you don't know foul!

 

[user 574]

I'm glad about it even though I didn't agree. I prefered 206 (think that was the less stringent one). I'm an x-smoker but always said I'd never become the anti-smoking nazi type & haven't. I get a far worse hangover if I'm in a smoke filled bar so again, I'll appreciate it but its just more control crap. That phrase smoke filled bar is going by the wayside 'round here.

Can't think of a more climate friendly place for this rule though. Get yer butt outside. I don't think there is nearly as many smokers out here as there are in the midwest though. Easier to pass.

 

[Fiery Sword]

This whole I'm For and I'm Against thing is the wrong point to me. Why can't a private business CHOOSE to be either smoking or non-smoking. The employees would then know, before they take a job, that they were working in a smoking/non-smoking place. Patrons would CHOOSE whether they wanted to sit in a smoking/non-smoking place.

Maybe a bar would lost it's non-smokers if it decided to stay w/ smoking. Maybe the bar would lose it's smokers if it went non-smoke, BUT IT SHOULD BE THE BUSINESS' DECISION, NOT THE GOVERNMENT's!!!

This is trivial to me. Laws to prohibit private businesses and individuals from doing lawful things are reactionary, unnecessary and embarrasing to a "free" society.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[user 574]

One more thing. State your opinion but we ought not fight; we're treading into the politics realm and the mods are watching!

 

[Fiery Sword]

Right on - I think I'm just all whacked up on politics after all the election coverage through the last few days. I don't have a real problem with either side of this issue, I just think that "choice" is always best.

No caps lock this time. Sorry if it came across as confrontational.

 

[user 574]

Sorry if it came across as confrontational.

Nope it didn't. I was looking in the mirror when I posted my comment . We just try to stay away from politics as it usually gets ugly and voila; the post is deleted and on that rare occasion people banned. There were other AZ propositions I'd love to post (rant) on but must refrain, must refrain! Or head to some political ranters anonmyous site.

 

[olllllo]

Well, in this case there is a tie to beer and that is bars.

If CA, VA, NY, Ireland and Italy (to name a few) can survive this... I think that this can actually be a good thing for bars (micros in particular).

 

[user 574]

It's funny, the bar I frequent most often (2+ times per week ) is Thunder Canyon Brewery on the NW side of Tucson. Been going there for 7 years and it's always been smoke free inside. Place is packed often but they have the outside serving area for smoking. It wouldn't have become our hang-out if there was smoking inside.

I didn't read the details on pop 201 enough; can porch areas remain smoking at the discretion of the owner?

 

[olllllo]

According to what I read the operative word is enclosed. Outdoors (patio) not enclosed? Right?

Other question is when does this happen? The act reads that the 2 major sections occur on ratification and all other provisions occur in May of 2007. I couldn't see any other provisions.

 

[disaffected]

I agree, while I hate having the government set rules I also hate going to a bar and being surrounded by smoke. No bar is going to willing make it no smoking and I shouldn't have to sit in it just to get a beer and a meal.

Why do you think so few bars (maybe none?) are willing to go "no smoking" on their own without a law that forces them to? The answer is because there is not sufficient market demand for it. If there were, entrepreneurs would open smokeless bars all over the place.

Actually, I suspect there probably are some who have gone smokeless voluntarily, but I don't imagine they constitute a large percentage of bars. If bars thought they could get even bigger crowds and make even more money by banning smoking, you can bet that more of them would choose to do so on their own.

You want a smokeless bar? Open one in an area that doesn't coerce you to comply with the smokeless dictum and see if you can compete with the other bars. If your bar is good enough, maybe you can compete. And if you can and you actually prosper for that reason, you can be sure you'll get positive free publicity over it. You might just start a trend in the direction you prefer.

That's how a free market operates. I say give it a shot. It would be a good test.

 

[Bernie Brewer]

OK, so then why don't we tell companies that we don't care how much their smoke-stacks pollute the air? Let's let them, because otherwise industries lose profits.

Face it smokers, NO ONE WANTS YOUR POLLUTION!!! The people have voted. They've voted for clean air when they go out. They voted for not smelling like crap when they get home. NO ONE WANTS YOUR CANCER.

Seriously.

Um, I don't smoke. Never have. It is indeed a filthy habit. However, it is entirely legal. I don't think it is my business, or the government's, to tell people where they can and can't partake in a perfectly legal activity. it's just government sticking their noses where they don't belong, again, like telling me I have to wear a seatbelt or telling me what age my kid has to be before I can take him out of a carseat, like telling me I have to stand on the grass in the park, not on the sidewalk, in order to drink a beer. If a guy next me in a bar wants to light up, fine. If you don't like it, there's the door. Let the individual businesses make their own decisions as to the policies, rather than the government, then let the public choose whether or not they are going to frequent their establishments based upon their policies, not the government's. If they are going to mandate anything, it should be adequate ventilation systems. But that would make too much sense.
Let's see how many of you I've pi$$ed off with this one. Cheers.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

All this talk makes me want to light a cigar.

 

[Bernie Brewer]

All this talk makes me want to light a cigar.

LOL a little levity never hurts............

 

[olllllo]

That's how a free market operates. I say give it a shot. It would be a good test.

But now this propositon, now law, levels the playing field for this state and this will force those who want smoking and a place to go to test maket forces. Still confident in that entreprenureal model? Then you should expect some sort of smoker club to go gangbusters here.

 

[olllllo]

it is entirely legal. I don't think it is my business, or the government's, to tell people where they can and can't partake in a perfectly legal activity.

And it still is as long as you're not in a bar or restaurant in AZ, or an airplane internationally or domestically, or an elevator, or in a hospital, or while refueling your car (federal).

 

[user 574]

Yep - outside patio. I don't think they could allow smoking inside before because of the food serving inside. Wasn't it state law that if you made more $ on food than booze you had to be non-smoking even if you had a bar? That prop explicitly defined VFW's as exempt. let them boyz smoke, they deserve it. Anyways, here's to alcoholics dipping!

I remember not 3 years ago in St Paul, MN I went into a Subway and they had a smoking section. I thought that was wierd. That and standing outside when it's 30 below to huff one down. Don't miss that!

 

[disaffected]

Face it smokers, NO ONE WANTS YOUR POLLUTION!!! The people have voted. They've voted for clean air when they go out. They voted for not smelling like crap when they get home. NO ONE WANTS YOUR CANCER.

NO ONE? Wrong. Smokers do. Why do believe that your wishes should trump theirs?

Everyone today knows the risks of smoking. Everyone has the power to take up the habit or to put it down if they so desire. Smoking is and should be a personal choice.

Bars are not public places despite the disingenuous claim by some, including agenda-pushing lobbyists and governments, that they are. Bar owners should have the right to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their bars. A business' policies should be left to the discretion of the business. People who don't like the bar owner's policy regarding smoking are free to patronize a bar that has a policy consistent with their smoking preference. What? You say there are none of those? Well, absent force, it is the market that determines the distribution of smoking and non-smoking bars. And that's how it should be.

 

[user 574]

Glad to see my comments earlier to abstain from conflict is working . I think this one should be allowed to rock though. It's not Blue vs Red.

I stated my stance, glad it happened, don't agree.

Now lets start talking about those people who just can't contain their underarm odor, don't care that they are offensive to others and walk around in public. We need a prop for them too!

 

[disaffected]

This whole I'm For and I'm Against thing is the wrong point to me. Why can't a private business CHOOSE to be either smoking or non-smoking. The employees would then know, before they take a job, that they were working in a smoking/non-smoking place. Patrons would CHOOSE whether they wanted to sit in a smoking/non-smoking place.

Maybe a bar would lost it's non-smokers if it decided to stay w/ smoking. Maybe the bar would lose it's smokers if it went non-smoke, BUT IT SHOULD BE THE BUSINESS' DECISION, NOT THE GOVERNMENT's!!!

This is trivial to me. Laws to prohibit private businesses and individuals from doing lawful things are reactionary, unnecessary and embarrasing to a "free" society.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Good post! Applause!

 

[disaffected]

There were other AZ propositions I'd love to post (rant) on but must refrain, must refrain! Or head to some political ranters anonmyous site.

Volconvo is a good political debate site.

 

[olllllo]

Hey, I don't mean to be a bastard about this. You guys are all making good points and I think we are all learning something.

This is the first opportunity I've had to speak with people I respect about this. I just spent the last few days hearing it from smokers at work became born again Libertarians when it comes to smoker's rights but would sell out someone's Miranda rights if they weren't the right color or had 'merican' sounding names.

 

[disaffected]

Um, I don't smoke. Never have. It is indeed a filthy habit. However, it is entirely legal. I don't think it is my business, or the government's, to tell people where they can and can't partake in a perfectly legal activity. it's just government sticking their noses where they don't belong, again, like telling me I have to wear a seatbelt or telling me what age my kid has to be before I can take him out of a carseat, like telling me I have to stand on the grass in the park, not on the sidewalk, in order to drink a beer. If a guy next me in a bar wants to light up, fine. If you don't like it, there's the door. Let the individual businesses make their own decisions as to the policies, rather than the government, then let the public choose whether or not they are going to frequent their establishments based upon their policies, not the government's. If they are going to mandate anything, it should be adequate ventilation systems. But that would make too much sense.
Let's see how many of you I've pi$$ed off with this one. Cheers.

Another fine post I applaud and agree with.

 

[user 574]

I view this kind of like all grain vs extract; aluminum and bleach. Good debate.

 

[olllllo]

RE: Government control.

It was a proposition (the democratic proceess) and not the Government. Free market vote if you will. The government played no role in passing this legislation.

 

[disaffected]

But now this propositon, now law, levels the playing field for this state and this will force those who want smoking and a place to go to test maket forces. Still confident in that entreprenureal model? Then you should expect some sort of smoker club to go gangbusters here.

Given the provision in the law to let private clubs allow smoking, that's precisely what I'd expect. Assuming the provision doesn't impose so many restrictions that it is impractical for other reasons, that is. Someone pushed for that exception, so someone else must feel the same way.

I'm always confident that in the absence of coercion the entrepreneurial model will support the desires of the market without artificial distortions. I'm also certain the economy would benefit under those circumstances, since such an approach favors an increase in entrepreneurial ventures.

I don't know if the law leveled the playing field in Arizona. Were there some areas that had passed bans already? If not, then it was level before too. That isn't my point and I don't care what kind of bar, smoking or non-smoking, becomes predominant when determined by market forces. I only wish for the market to be the determining factor, not the government.

 

[disaffected]

And it still is as long as you're not in a bar or restaurant in AZ, or an airplane internationally or domestically, or an elevator, or in a hospital, or while refueling your car (federal).

Why stop there? You haven't yet exhausted the ever-growing list of incursions against individual liberty that seem to grow day by day. What, I wonder, will tomorrow bring?

 

[disaffected]

RE: Government control.

It was a proposition (the democratic proceess) and not the Government. Free market vote if you will. The government played no role in passing this legislation.

Some people object to voting on moral grounds, as I do. There is no level playing field.

 

[disaffected]

RE: Government control.

It was a proposition (the democratic proceess) and not the Government. Free market vote if you will. The government played no role in passing this legislation.

Free market vote? The government played no role? Appearances can be deceiving. Who crafted the language of the propositions that were proposed? Who decided which one would be offered to the voters to decide? Why refer to it as democracy when it looks, acts, and walks like oligarchy?